cont..

Most farmers DID pay significant amounts for their farms, but not always in the traditional way. Most inherited farms require that non-farming siblings be paid out (or else wills can be challenged in court), they also pay for the maintenance of parents in retirement, take far less than the standard wage for many years, all of which are ways of paying for the farm. Paying a large lump sum at title transfer is not the only way that things are paid for.

There are all sorts of arguments about supporting farmers.
However, it comes down to;

Do you want to eat ?

The alternative is to import our food permanently and what makes you
think it will be available when the crunch comes.
There is no way around this, either you subsidise the farmers in
drought years or you pay much higher prices in good years or take the
risk on imported food.

No ifs no buts, thats what you are up against.

So live with it !

I say I must agree Bazz,
We went shopping tonight at the local Woolworths. My wife picks up the best prices. Tin corn from China, Frozen beans from China, Fish from Thialand. All questionable quality. I Tell her put it back support our local farmers, otherwise we will be paying taxes to give them the dole.

Farms like most family business are transferred to children of the owners. Most shareholdings in Large companies are passed down to children. That unprofitable farms during drought, are passed down to children is not any different. It is just that unless farmers are supported they will become bankrupt and their farms are worth nothing. At leasat it is cheaper to keep them from unemployment benifits on land that during drought is worthless. At least Homes, business or share holdings are assets of value in a market.

The issue is NOT about government assistance. The issue is whether we have too many people in this country for the water supply available or whether we use the water supply we have in the most useful way or whether farmers and graziers have exploited opportunities available to such an extent that NOW they are over-extended.

The food chain literally starts with what is available from natural and renewable sources. When we over exploit what is available to make ever increasing profits (a fundamental basis of capitalism) and foolishly cultivate cotton and rice in areas which are clearly unsuitable for such purposes or cultivate crops that are inedible but do make a profit - be it a bio-fuel or whatever, then perhaps we need to think about starting to control WHAT people do with their land as a pre-condition before we give them grants to continue to degrade the land and the other natural resources that exist.

garpet,
"cultivate crops that are inedible but do make a profit"
there's the rub, food prices have been too close to the cost of production for too long. Wealth outside the value of the farm has been hard to amass, and when prolonged drought hits the reserves just aren't available.
In the worst drought on record Australians aren't starving. When the drought breaks,what do you propose to do with all the food if inedible crops are disallowed.

Here comes the little "bash the farmers" brigade again. At the risk of repeating myself over and over.....

1. Cotton in particular is a DESERT plant. It need hot and mostly dry conditions to grow. Those conditions partiuclarly in NW NSW, and southern QLD are ideal. Cotton needs a certain amount of water, and is most productive under irrigation. It needs water around its feet regularly, but not higher up on the plant, particularly towards fruiting, otherwise you end up with boll rot (rotten cotton). Cotton itself is inedible, but cottonseed oil is used in cooking, and mash is used for animal fodder. And guess what, we need cotton for clothing. Got to be more environmentally friendly than oil-based synthetics.

2. Rice is also a summer crop that grows well in hot conditions such as in Australia. Rice growing is strictly regulated as to soil types etc, that wont leach heavily into the water table.

3. Both cotton and rice industries are leaders in research and development, both in resource management and plant health and production.

4. Biofuel may be inedible, but surely its better than using non-renewable fossil fuels (not to mention that if done properly, it should be carbon neutral).

5. Despite the fact that we dont use all of our primary production domestically, exports help to balance our trade terms, which are pretty dismal anyway. Farming impacts also extend heavily into metro areas (more heavily than most would care to admit), as was seen during the start of the drought, with lay-offs in Sydney and Melbourne (and probably elsewhere). There are great flow-on effects that usually are not taken into account when talking about assistance to farmers or the impact of the industry in general.

garpet, I am not advocating production at all costs, although by saying to our farmers "if you cant make a living, then get out" most people ARE advocating just that. Most long-term (read family) farmers take a long-term approach to their business, and take the impacts of their actions on the future productivity of their land into consideration